I am starting to set up an Akai MPC1000 as the MIDI sequencer for my hardware-based studio. I plan to set up templates for MIDI recording, which will be consistent across the various synths, modules and drum machines.

I have read that, despite it being the General MIDI standard, Ch10 is not good for drums, with Channel 1 providing ‘tighter’ timing. As it is just a matter of the order of 4 bits in the MIDI message, it is not obvious why it should make any perceptible difference - unless, in a multi-Channel data stream, the drum voices ‘come tenth’.

On the other hand, with Ch 10 being the ‘standard’, sticking to it will offer higher levels of compatibility with a wider range of hardware/software. Purely as an example, the Akai Tomcat / Rhythm Wolf drum machines have fixed Ch10 assignment for the drum voices.

So, Channel 01 for tightness (or does it not matter?) or Channel 10 for GM etc compatibility?

BillB wrote:So, Channel 01 for tightness (or does it not matter?) or Channel 10 for GM etc compatibility?

It probably doesn't matter.

You can run your own tests if you like that sort of thing. The channel 1 thing came from early MIDI/software sequencers that processed events by track/channel, so when they would output MIDI notes on a given clock, they would run through in channel order - so any events on channel 1 would get sent first, then channel 2 etc.

I think (I should check) it was early Pro24 or Cubase that specified for the tightest timing, use tracks at the top of the track list, and events on MIDI channel 1, as they would always go "first" - and the more MIDI data in general, the more likely events on lower tracks and channels will get pushed back a little due to higher priority events getting sent first.

In your case, I don't think it will matter, so stick to 10 if it makes logistical sense. :thumbup:

It depends...If you have a number of events happening at exactly the same time, channels are transmitted in sequence, but there is no such thing as the 'first' one in absolute time. However, ones carrying sharp attack instruments should ideally be as close together as possible, so leave drums where they are and put (say) a track with piano at 9 and brass at 11.

If they are a millisecond or more apart, it won't matter anyway, as channels are only transmitted when there is something on them to send.

Probably more relevant is don't use MIDI THRU if you can possibly avoid it - especially not on kit that uses active sensing.

Avoid it like the plague for drums if using a hardware MIDI sequencer to play everything from hardware MIDI modules. Zuke will tell you the first thing he and his other programming mates did back in the 80's and 90's was set the drums up on channel 1. The drum machines often had their own timing foibles, so you didn't want extra timing issues being added in. Channel 10 drums were noticeably laggy.

But for modern software MIDI within DAWs? I doubt it makes any difference at all now.

If you're not sure, then just try recording a part on channel 1 and then channel 10 and seeing if you can see any timing differences on the resulting waveforms.

Resistorman, it’s definitely ‘a thing’, although I can’t recall the source(s) - seen it several times over the decades.

Desmond, I’m sure you are right that it is something archaic from the early days of multi-Channel sequencing - it would be interesting to know what / when. Not sure what search term to use on Muzines.... :D

Will, good point about using softer sounds with higher channels, although assuming that synths have been pre-allocated channels (just to maintain the sanity of a fixed system) no one synth will always be on, say, string synth duties. So that one may have to slide a little.

As for avoiding Channel 13... I shall be scientific, like NASA, and boldly jump regardless into one of the most unlucky missions ever. There’s no room for superstition in MIDI, or Apollo missions :headbang:

Another thought is that the MPC has two MIDI outs, so it would be possible to dedicate one to the ‘drum modules’ (Volca Beats, TR-626, EMX1, Alesis DM5) although these would have to go via a Thru box or switch. Other possible percussion sources (eg JV-2080) would just have to carry on via the other outputs with the rest of the synths. Notwithstanding Will’s advice about avoiding Thru, it is not possible to avoid having one/some somewhere, so maybe a single Thru box feeding the drum units.... I think you can get away with driving two MIDI inputs from a single MIDI out via splitter lead, but four might be pushing it!just when I thought I had finished wiring MIDI :headbang:

I guess most modern midi is now either in the box or goes through USB, so most instruments have their own port, and unless you are really hammering multi timberal, I'd wager there is rarely much more than one channel in use most of the time anyway. So I'd be interested to know more about how the timing between ports is managed.

That said I have just set up my Cubase template for a Proteus Virtuoso for orchestration. Its an old school rompler, with 32 MIDI channels over 2 ports and 128 voice multi timbral. Interestingly, I have set the channels up to reflect the orchestra pit, left to right and front to back. This means that all the slow attach stuff (Strings) are using the lower channels and the fast attack stuff (Brass and percussion) is all in the higher channels.

While I am convinced that I will never be able to hear any discernible timing discrepancies - especially after they have gone through Elf's reverb delay technique (from another recent thread), I wondered if there is a MIDI standard or protocol which defines how orchestral instruments' channels are arranged, beyond channel 10 for percussion. And if there is, whether it is sensible given the points raised in this thread.

Moroccomoose wrote:I guess most modern midi is now either in the box or goes through USB, so most instruments have their own port.

Yes, that's how I have it when driving from a DAW. I'm lucky enough to have a couple of UM-880s and a UM-550, so most things have their own port.

But when you are looking at driving from a hardware sequencer (albeit one with two ports), channels are the only way to direct parts to devices, thus the question.

Apart from GM drums on Ch10, I am not aware of any MIDI protocols which propose a relationship between instrumentation and channels. But who knows: someone, somewhere, probably has! GM is mainly concerned with having program change numbers per instrument, plus various standard controller messages.

Having said that, and based on some of the comments above, I think I will be setting more percussive instruments (eg monosynths likely to take bass duties) to lower channels). Apart from that (and drums) it is likely that any system that makes sense to you is a good one.

desmond wrote:I think (I should check) it was early Pro24 or Cubase that specified for the tightest timing, use tracks at the top of the track list, and events on MIDI channel 1, as they would always go "first" - and the more MIDI data in general, the more likely events on lower tracks and channels will get pushed back a little due to higher priority events getting sent first.

This - I certainly remember reading it about happening with Cubase (and may even have written about it at the time as well ;) )

As Desmond says, I doubt that it would make any difference timing-wise nowadays, although bets might be off if you overlay loads of controller & pitch bend messages on your drum MIDI note data stream.